Papal infallibility simplified and explained

[Jon_S_1]

I’m with you on that but the “Church” before Vatican II was specifically and only the Roman Catholic Church.
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943

1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
2. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Jan. 6, 1928

1. [21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23]** it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: **whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
2. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

So when Pope Eugene IV says, “all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives” he is not talking about the church in the same way you are. He is saying if you’re not a Roman Catholic then you’re not in the church. Other popes have said the same thing. This new definition of “Church” comes from Vatican II. Pope Pius XII in 1943 did not consider non-Catholics as part of the Church.

The church is always and ever will be the Catholic Church.

All baptized Christians are members of the Catholic Church whether they like it or not.

There is no new definition of church. The church is the bride of Christ the Catholic Church of whom the sacrament of baptism came. All other churches are separated but in baptism uniquely joined.

This does not mean they are valid or saved. In fact as far as we know if they die in mortal sin they are damned. Just like Catholics.

The church acknowledges the little truth they hold but salvation is only reached through the Catholic Church and her sacraments.

Baptism outside the Catholic Church is an oxymoron.

Baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic Church able to be performed by anybody.

 

[MrSnaith]

I’m with you on that but the “Church” before Vatican II was specifically and only the Roman Catholic Church.
ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943

1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
2. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Jan. 6, 1928

1. [21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23]** it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: **whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
2. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

So when Pope Eugene IV says, “all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives” he is not talking about the church in the same way you are. He is saying if you’re not a Roman Catholic then you’re not in the church. Other popes have said the same thing. This new definition of “Church” comes from Vatican II. Pope Pius XII in 1943 did not consider non-Catholics as part of the Church.

Actually, I am in agreement with these professions from the Popes. Indeed, I would assert to you that every pope since Vatican II would also agree with them. There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, who is the body of Christ, and without baptism and profession of the true Faith, you are not part of the Roman Catholic Church.

That said, this does not mean that, for example, everyone in the Americas before the discovery of the Americas, is necessarily in hell. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. And since He is the Roman Catholic Church, no one can come to the Father except through the Roman Catholic Church. No recent pope is going to disagree with you on that. But our understanding is broader. Christ is the truth, therefore anyone who responds to the truth responds to Christ. Christ is the way, therefore whoever lives righteously, according to the law of God written in the human heart, lives according to Christ. Thus, the Church has said, that in the hour of death, God may grant the soul of one who has lived well, and in the truth, as much of the truth as has been given to them, the chance to accept Him in fullness of truth. Such people, then, would not be separate from the Catholic Church in death though they had no opportunity to join it in life. For it would only be those people who, given the opportunity to do so, would have certainly joined the fullness of the Catholic Church in life who would be granted this grace at the hour of their death. Any recent pope would tell you, everyone in heaven belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. Period.

 

[MilesVitae]

It’s my opinion that the Holy Spirit protects the office. So some delusional idiot will be kept from occupying it.

Or.

As history has shown when a horrible pope got in the office.

The Holy Spirit protects the church by a lack of statements and dogmatic decrees.

Agreed.

It is really impossible for the pope to act unilaterally as he works under the 2000 yr tradition of the church. Even without consulting living bishops he has countless dead bishops and church doctors he is forced to consult before making his decree.

There’s a lot of truth in that, and I grant my scenario is a little extreme - but I wish to be clear on what the Church actually teaches on the infallibility of the Pope’s teachings.
I guess another way of stating my point is this: we can never call into question the truth of a papal definition on the basis that the Pope did not do all he ought to have done to discern the truth beforehand. If I remember correctly, this is why the Relatio rejects placing any kind of conditions on how much the Pope must do beforehand for a definition to be infallible (I have an electronic copy of the book on a different computer, so I can’t look it up at this moment, but I will later, if someone else does not produce the quotation first).
If it comes to pass that a point makes a dogmatic definition, we know that it will be true, regardless of how diligent the Pope was in preparing the definition.

 

[Tunesmith]

Actually, I am in agreement with these professions from the Popes. Indeed, I would assert to you that every pope since Vatican II would also agree with them. There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church, who is the body of Christ, and without baptism and profession of the true Faith, you are not part of the Roman Catholic Church.

That said, this does not mean that, for example, everyone in the Americas before the discovery of the Americas, is necessarily in hell.

What does America have to do with the gospel? The apostles started preaching salvation in the first century.

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. And since He is the Roman Catholic Church, no one can come to the Father except through the Roman Catholic Church. No recent pope is going to disagree with you on that. But our understanding is broader. Christ is the truth, therefore anyone who responds to the truth responds to Christ.

Yes I agree but as I quoted, as recent as 1943 non-catholic christians were heretics and schismatics bound for hell.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What does America have to do with the gospel? The apostles started preaching salvation in the first century.

Yes I agree but as I quoted, as recent as 1943 non-catholic christians were heretics and schismatics bound for hell.

If they are culpable in their heresy and schism then they are today too.

 

[MrSnaith]

What does America have to do with the gospel? The apostles started preaching salvation in the first century.

Yes I agree but as I quoted, as recent as 1943 non-catholic christians were heretics and schismatics bound for hell.

I referenced the Americas because the natives there had no opportunity to hear the Gospel for several hundred years after the Apostles began preaching it, and thus also had no opportunity to reject it.

I would say that as recent as February 1, 2014 non-Catholic Christians are either heretics and/or schismatics, and given their continued rejection of the true doctrine, will persist in their mortal sin and thus continue on the road to hell. That teaching has not changed.

 

[Tunesmith]

Dear Tunesmith,

You can’t go around quoting things bereft of their context. In other parts of the Decrees of Florence, it notes explicitly about the efforts of evangelizing Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians. This part you quoted obviously refers to those who have been evangelized and still refuse to believe. It is NOT referring to those who have never heard the Gospel through no fault of their own.

I’m not sure what importance you attach to the part you bolded, but I took the liberty of highlighting the parts of it you may have missed. This section is referring to those who LEAVE the Church. It’s not referring to those who are invincibly ignorant.

Blessings,
Marduk

I see what you’re saying.:newidea: The ending refers to those who leave the church and that makes them not able to shed their blood for Christ. I wrongly accused Pope Eugene of ignoring baptism of desire.:sad_yes:

 

[Jon_S_1]

I see what you’re saying.:newidea: The ending refers to those who leave the church and that makes them not able to shed their blood for Christ. I wrongly accused Pope Eugene of ignoring baptism of desire.:sad_yes:

 

[MilesVitae]

Agreed.

There’s a lot of truth in that, and I grant my scenario is a little extreme - but I wish to be clear on what the Church actually teaches on the infallibility of the Pope’s teachings.
I guess another way of stating my point is this: we can never call into question the truth of a papal definition on the basis that the Pope did not do all he ought to have done to discern the truth beforehand. If I remember correctly, this is why the Relatio rejects placing any kind of conditions on how much the Pope must do beforehand for a definition to be infallible (I have an electronic copy of the book on a different computer, so I can’t look it up at this moment, but I will later, if someone else does not produce the quotation first).
If it comes to pass that a Pope makes a dogmatic definition, we know that it is true, regardless of how diligent the Pope was in preparing the definition.

Oops - I was trying to edit a typo in the above post. Apparently I hit the quote button (since the edit button has ceased to be). Well, I corrected the typo anyway

 

[mardukm]

Dear Tunesmith,

Thank you for your most recent post. The spiritual fruit of understanding is active within you, and that personally humbles me…

Yes I agree but as I quoted, as recent as 1943 non-catholic christians were heretics and schismatics bound for hell.

Heretics and schismatics by definition are willful sinners. They know and understand the teaching of the Catholic Church but willfully reject it and either willfully leave the Church or willfully remain outside of it. The Church understands that there are those who are not in this willful state. A mere knowledge of Catholic teaching is not tantamount to a proper understanding of it (as you might realize from the many threads in CAF). There are those who, while knowing ABOUT the teaching, nevertheless do not comprehend it properly and therefore still remain outside the Church. There are even those who leave the Church who do so not out of an actual rejection of her teaching, but because they misunderstood the teaching to be saying something else. These also would fall under the category of “invincible ignorance” and are therefore not automatically bound for hell.

The Catholic Church is NOT saying that everyone outside the Church is in a state of invincible ignorance, and therefore everyone has a chance of being saved. IT only says that this is a possible state in which a person can be in, and that those who are actually in that state are not culpable before God and therefore may be saved. There are even those who, while not have knowledge of her teachings, for some reason hate the Church. These do not fall under the mitigation of “invincible ignorance,” and would not be saved because of their hatred for the Church.

You might note that the 1943 encyclical you quoted indeed acknowledged the principle of invincible ignorance.

Also, please keep in mind that the Church states that only OBSTINATE heretics and schismatics are bound for hell - those who PERSIST in their heresy or schism until the end despite having full knowledge and understanding of the Church’s teachings.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Miles,

Pope “Nemo” wakes up and, in a fit of autocratic madness and Absolute Petrine delusion, decides he is going to make a dogmatic definition on faith and morals binding on the whole Church. He doesn’t bother to consult his brother bishops, or Scripture, or the Fathers or the theologians of the Church. If the assertion he intends to define is erroneous, then will or will not the Holy Spirit prevent him from making that definition?

I think the answer is obviously, “yes,” because the Holy Spirit protects the Church from dogmatically defining error. Do you agree, or do you think that the Holy Spirit only protects the Church from error if the Pope (in the case of an papal ex cathedra statement) is acting with due diligence? Do you think the Holy Spirit would protect the Church only from error on the part of a diligent Pope, but not from error on the part of a negligent Pope?

I see your point now. Yes, we are in agreement on this particular point. The case you are proposing refers to the infallibility of the Church, not “papal” infallibility. “Papal” infallibility refers specifically to the exercise of the Pope’s responsibility as primate for the Church universal, and would be active synergistically with his “diligence.” Without this diligence, “papal” infallibility is inactive, but the HS will protect the Church nonetheless from a Pope trying to promulgate a decree without this due diligence by which he could possibly lead the Church into error.

b) He will attempt to make a definition which happens to be false. In that case, the Holy Spirit will prevent him (in whatever way the Holy Spirit acts). The Pope doesn’t have the ability to trick the Holy Spirit into not protecting the Church from error by acting unilaterally.

This, I also agree with.

Well, of course the Pope is supposed to act with his brother bishops - but that doesn’t mean an individual Pope always will. In theory a Pope could have Absolute Petrine delusions and think himself divinely inspired and try to define without determining the consensus of his brother bishops. If he does this, one of two things will happen: a) he will attempt to make a definition which happens to be true. In that case, I see no reason the Holy Spirit will prevent him.

This, I do not agree with. Here is what the official Relatio asserted:
"Here we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is BOUND by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it"

It’s pretty clear, according to this official explanation by the official spokesman for the Commission that, by papal direction, was responsible for formulating the decrees, that the term ex cathedra by definition includes the responsibility to “take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it.”

The point of the Relatio was exactly that he cannot act apart from this agreement. And he must diligently search out/ determine this agreement, before he can safely make an ex cathedra decree. In his necessary determination of this agreement, he normally has recourse, but is not limited, to consultation with his brother bishops.

I guess another way of stating my point is this: we can never call into question the truth of a papal definition on the basis that the Pope did not do all he ought to have done to discern the truth beforehand. If I remember correctly, this is why the Relatio rejects placing any kind of conditions on how much the Pope must do beforehand for a definition to be infallible (I have an electronic copy of the book on a different computer, so I can’t look it up at this moment, but I will later, if someone else does not produce the quotation first).
If it comes to pass that he makes a dogmatic definition, we know that it will be true, regardless of how diligent the Pope was in preparing the definition.

To be perfectly clear, the condition that the Relatio did not wish to impose on the Pope was the ABSOLUTE and DOGMATIC necessity of direct consultation with his brother bishops, while admitting a “relative necessity” for such an action. However, it did not absolve him of the “Rule of Faith” that his definitions must be in agreement with the “present preaching” of the universal Magisterium. While direct consultation is not an absolute necessity, agreement is (as dictated by the ancient Rule of Faith which is Apostolic Canon 34).

As always, your comments and criticisms are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Brother Miles, I do realize that your concern is that even if the Pope is BOUND by his office to exercise diligence. “what happens if he does not exercise this due diligence that is necessitated by his office?”

We both agree that if the Pope, because of this lack of diligence, were to attempt to promulgate a heterodox teaching, the Holy Spirit’s protection for his Church would somehow prevent it.

But, you ask, what IF he does, despite this lack of diligence, happen to promulgate a decree. Should we assume it is infallible?

Your scenario is actually identical to the philosophical quandary “Can God make a rock he cannot lift?” The fact is, “due diligence” is intimately, inherently and irrevocably part of the definition of ex cathedra. If the Pope has made a dogmatic definition, it can ONLY have been made with “due diligence.” I believe that if a dogmatic definition is necessitated, the Holy Spirit will prompt the Pope to act with due diligence. That is part of the charism of infallibility. If he willfully refuses this prompting, the Holy Spirit, per Christ’s promise of the CHURCH’s infallibility, will somehow prevent it from happening.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Abu]

mardukm #97
the Pope has PRIORLY determined (and MUST priorly determine) that he is actually in agreement with the sensus fidei and the universal ordinary Magisterium before making the decree.
The Pope must make a serious effort to determine that he is not contradicting the infallible Faith of the sensus fidei nor the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium before he is even capable of pronouncing an ex cathedra decree.

The slant here lacks any quotations, as always, from those who know – such as Bishop Gasser, or from the many faithful and knowledgeable Catholic priests quoted extensively already, whom mardukm tries to demean and contradict.

Thus;
Fr. James T O’Connor translating and commenting on Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio of Vatican I notes that “Indeed, the proper exercise of the infallibility of the entire People of God necessitates ‘a faithful submission to the Magisterium’ if that body of the faithful is to believe, penetrate more deeply, and apply more thoroughly the faith entrusted to the saints. If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].

As noted in post #85:
‘Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **the *universitas fidelium *(the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” **The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]
Thus those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.’

Without this necessary effort to ensure that he will not be contradicting the Faith of the Church, he will not have the charism of infallibility, because the charism of infallibility works ONLY throughout and with this effort that he must make.

.
On the contrary, as Fr O’Connor points out, from both Vatican I and Vatican II, in defining infallibly, the “Pope individually is able to act for the entire college of bishops…without previous consultation or subsequent approbation.” [Op cit. p 119].

So, though consultation is the norm, the many times when what seems to be true is false shows the danger of restricting definition of truth to consultation, for “deciding on what is truth and where what seems to be true is false – this prerogative does not belong to all the faithful.” How Infallible Is The Teaching Church? in The Teaching Church In Our Time, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 112].

 

[Jon_S_1]

The slant here lacks any quotations, as always, from those who know – such as Bishop Gasser, or from the many faithful and knowledgeable Catholic priests quoted extensively already, whom mardukm tries to demean and contradict.

Thus;
Fr. James T O’Connor translating and commenting on Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio of Vatican I notes that “Indeed, the proper exercise of the infallibility of the entire People of God necessitates ‘a faithful submission to the Magisterium’ if that body of the faithful is to believe, penetrate more deeply, and apply more thoroughly the faith entrusted to the saints. If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].

As noted in post #85:
‘Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **the *universitas fidelium ***(the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]
Thus those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.’
.
On the contrary, as Fr O’Connor points out, from both Vatican I and Vatican II, in defining infallibly, the “Pope individually is able to act for the entire college of bishops…without previous consultation or subsequent approbation.” [Op cit. p 119].

So, though consultation is the norm, the many times when what seems to be true is false shows the danger of restricting definition of truth to consultation, for “deciding on what is truth and where what seems to be true is false – this prerogative does not belong to all the faithful.” How Infallible Is The Teaching Church? in The Teaching Church In Our Time, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 112].

Abu,

You love to quote priests.

Why don’t you use actual church documents as there are so many priests with opinions some of them dissident and none if them doctrinal.

Thanks.

 

[Abu]

Jon S #133
Why don’t you use actual church documents as there are so many priests with opinions some of them dissident and none if them doctrinal.

There are none so blind as those who will not to see. Essential quotations of Church documents have been given including Vatican I and Vatican II.

For the confused and uninformed, the late revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J.’s, case for beatification is being prepared.

Where is the dissent imagined? Tilting at windmills helps no one.

 

[mardukm]

Abu,

You love to quote priests.

Why don’t you use actual church documents as there are so many priests with opinions some of them dissident and none if them doctrinal.

Thanks.

No problem, brother Jon. Abu simply misunderstands what he is quoting, which I’ll point out in a short while.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

The slant here lacks any quotations, as always, from those who know – such as Bishop Gasser, or from the many faithful and knowledgeable Catholic priests quoted extensively already, whom mardukm tries to demean and contradict.

Nah. No contradiction on my part, just a lot of misunderstanding of those sources on your part.

Thus;
Fr. James T O’Connor translating and commenting on Bishop Vincent Gasser’s relatio of Vatican I notes that “Indeed, the proper exercise of the infallibility of the entire People of God necessitates ‘a faithful submission to the Magisterium’ if that body of the faithful is to believe, penetrate more deeply, and apply more thoroughly the faith entrusted to the saints. If the teaching of the Pope and bishops is not included in the ‘universal consent about matters of faith and morals’ then one does not have a sensus fidelium, a consensus among all the faithful. Once that is clear, it should be obvious that determining the sensus fidelium is not a matter of poll taking or of sociological reports.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 1986 p 106].

Don’t know where you get your sola papa malarchy from this quote from O’Connor. He clearly indicates that it is the Pope AND bishops that are the authority, not the Pope alone.

As noted in post #85:
‘Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **the *universitas fidelium ***(the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]
Thus those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.

Nothing here about “Pope alone” either. As brother AmbroseSJ had correctly stated, the sensus fidei is indeed active. The sensus fidei includes the Pope and the bishops. according to your own source. You, on the other hand, and in direct contradiction (typical of the sola papa mentality) sought to separate the Pope from the sensus fidei. You said the sensus fidei is only passive, separating it from the Pope who “alone” has the active voice in the Faith. Thank you, once again, for demonstrating the errors of the Absolutist Petrine view.
.

On the contrary, as Fr O’Connor points out, from both Vatican I and Vatican II, in defining infallibly, the “Pope individually is able to act for the entire college of bishops…without previous consultation or subsequent approbation.” [Op cit. p 119].

So, though consultation is the norm, the many times when what seems to be true is false shows the danger of restricting definition of truth to consultation, for “deciding on what is truth and where what seems to be true is false – this prerogative does not belong to all the faithful.” How Infallible Is The Teaching Church? in The Teaching Church In Our Time, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 112].

Seriously, brother. Do you even bother to actually try to understand what you read or quote? What part of this do you suppose contradicts what I stated in my post#130, and what I’ve stated so many times in the past? I think it was brother Jon S who had incisively pointed out that all you seem to often manage to do is give quotes that are in agreement with the position you are arguing against.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Veritas1994]

Here is what Ludwig Ott has to say in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma about the Church’s infallibility

**§ 5. The Primacy of St. Peter **

**1. The Dogma and its opponents
Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to he the first of all
the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole
Church by appointing him immediately and personally
to the primacy of jurisdiction. (De fide.) **

The Vatican Council defined: A.S. D 1823. If anyone
says that the blessed apostle Peter was not constituted, by Christ Our Lord,
Prince of all the Apostles and visible head of all the Church Militant; or
that he (Peter) directly and immediately received from Our Lord Jesus Christ
a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema.
The invisible Head of the Church is the risen Christ. St. Peter represents the
position of Christ in the external government of the militant Church, and is
to this extent “the representative of Christ” on earth (Christi vicarius : D 694).

Opponents of this dogma are: the Greek Orthodox Church and the Oriental
sec… ~ individual medieval opponents of the Papacy, Marsilius of Padua and]
of Jandun, Wycliflc and Huss ; the whole Protestant movement; the Gallicans and
Febronians; the old Catholics and; the Modernists. According to the Gallicans
(E. Richer) and the Febrollians (N. Hontheim) the fullness of Christ’s spiritual
power was transferred immediately to the whole Church and through this to
St. Peter, so that he \?as the first servant of the Church, who was appointed
by the Church (caput ministeriale). According to the Modernists, the primacy
was not founded by Christ, but was developed to meet the needs of the Church
in post-apostolic times.

 

[Veritas1994]

Continuation of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

****§ 7. The Nature of the Papal Primacy ****

**1. Dogma
The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church. (De fide.) **

Against the various forms of Episcopalism, which limited the jurisdictive
power of the Pope in favour of the bishops (Conciliary Theory, Gallicanism,
Febronianism), the Vatican Council declared: “If anyone shall say that the
Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection and direction and not a
full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only
in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate
to the discipline and government of the Church spread through the world;
or assert that he possesses merely the principal part (potiores partes) and
not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he
enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches,
and over each and all the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema”
D 1831. Cf D 1827, CIC 218.

a) A true power of jurisdiction that is, a true governing power, not merely warrant of supervision or direction, such as, for example, belongs to the president of a political party, or a society. or of a conference. As a governmental power, it embraces the full power of legislation. administration of justice (disputed and voluntary jurisdiction) and of its execution. Corresponding to it on the part of the subjects is the duty of subordination and of obedience.

b) A universal power, that is, it extends personally to the pastors (bishops) and to the faithful, totally and individually, of the whole Church. Materially it refers, not merely to matters of faith and morals (teaching office), but also to Church discipline and government (pastoral office).

c) Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a
greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all the other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope.

d) A full power, that is, the Pope possesses of himself alone, the whole fullness of the Church power of jurisdiction and not merely a greater share than the other bishops taken individually or conjointly. Thus the Pope can rule independently on any matter which comes under the sphere of the Church’s jurisdiction without the concurrence of the other bishops or of the rest of the Church.

e) An ordinary power, that is, it is connected with the office, by virtue of divine
ordinance, and is not delegated from a higher possessor of jurisdiction. Thus it
can be exercised at any time, Le., not merely in exceptional cases, e.g., where the
bishops neglect their pastoral duties in their territories (Febronius, Eybel). D 1500

f) A truly episcopal power, that is. the Pope is just as much a U universal bishop of the whole Church, as he is bishop of his diocese of Rome (" Episcopus Urbis et Orbis ; Jacob of Viterbo). Thus, the Papa) power, like any other episcopal power, embraces the legislative, the juridical and the punitive power. Cf. CIC 218, Par. 2. and 335·

g) An immediate power, that is, the Pope can exercise his power, without the
intervention of an intermediary, over the bishops and the faithful of the whole Church.
The biblical and patristic foundation is seen in the texts cited in Pars. 5 and 6
The doctrine therein has attained full development in the dogma promulgated
by the Vatican Council.

1. Inferences
   a) It follows from the supreme governing power of the Pope over the whole
   Church that he has the right, in the exercise of his office, of coming into free contact with all the bishops and faithful of the whole Church. For this reason the Church rejects all attempts by the State to subject official intercourse with the Apostolic See to state control, and to make the juridical obligation of Papal decrees dependent on the concurrence of the State authorities (placet). D 1829.

b) As the supreme lawgiver of the Church, the Pope is not legally bound by
ecclesiastical decisions and usages, but by divine law alone. This demands that the Papal power, in consonance with its purpose, should be employed for the building-up of the Mystical Body of Christ, not for its destruction (2 Cor. 10, 8). The divine law, therefore, is an efficacious brake on arbitrariness. The third Gallican article, which demanded a far-reaching limitation of the exercise of the Papal power, was properly rejected. D 1324.

c) As the supreme judge of the Church, the Pope has the right of bringing
every Church law-matter before his court, and to receive appeals in all Church
disputes. He himself is judged by nobody (CIC 1556; Prima sedes a nemine
iudicatur), because there is no higher judge on earth than he. For the same
reason there is no appeal to a higher court against the judgment of the Pope.
The Church rejects an appeal from the Pope to General Council as this would
mean putting General Council above~ the Pope. D 1830; CIC 228, Par. 2.
Cf. D 1323 (22nd Gallican Article).

 

[Veritas1994]

last continuation…

§ 8. Papal Teaching Primacy or Papal Infallibility

**1. Dogma
The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.) **

The Union Council of Constantinople (869-70), of Lyons (1274), and of Florence (1438-45) having already proclaimed the teaching Primacy of the Pope, which, in its essence,involved infallibility, the Vatican Council defined: U The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra-that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church-by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer
willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff arc irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of the’ Church." D 1839, ct. 0466,694, 1833-35.

For the proper understanding of the dogma the following points must be noted:

a) The bearer of the Infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible not others to whom he transfers a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman Congregations.

b) The object of his Infallibility is his teaching concerning Faith and Morals,
above all revealed teaching, but also non-revealed teachings, which are closely
associated with the teachings of Revelation.

c) The condition of the Infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required: (a) That he speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his supreme apostolic authority If he speaks as a private theologian or as the bishop of his Diocese, he is not infallible That he have the intention of deciding finally a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear in the formulation, or by the circumstances, a decision ex cathedra is not complete. Most of the doctrinal expressions made by the Popes in their Encyclicals are not decisions ex cathedra.

d) The source of his Infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost, Who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error. This assistance must be distinguished from Revelation by which some truths or others are communicated by God to the bearer of the Revelation; and from Inspira*tion, which is a positive influence effected by God over an author, of such a nature that God Himself is the principal author of the writing, and the ideas are consequently the Word of God. The Holy Ghost preserves the bearer of the supreme teaching office from a false decision (assistentia negativa), and leads him, where necessary, by external and internal grace to the right knowledge and correct statement of the truth (assistentia positiva). The Divine assistance does not relieve the bearer of the infallible doctrinal power of the obligation of taking pains to know the truth, especially by means of the study of the sources of Revelation. Cf. D 1836. A consequence of the Infallibility is that the decisions, ex cathedra, of the Popes are" ofthem…se1ves," that is, without the intervention of a further authority, immutable and not by reason of the assent of the whole Church. as the Gallicans taught. D 1325 (4th Gallican Article)